OMB: What Are NASA's Lowest Impacting Activities?

Hey look everyone! It's change we can believe in!

First, claim to add $6B to NASA's budget over the next 5 years to quell dissent over the proposed FY2010 Budget for Space Exploration.

Then, come back later and have OMB cut $1B per year to pay for AIG, GM, and all our other favorite corporate bail-outs!

Finally, profit when the federal budget is balanced in AD3010 after saving $1B / year for 1000 years. It's foolproof!

Mark S.

Hey, if they dropped the NASA budget, they would only need 2 billion more to make the goal.

And so it begins.

With this infighting NASA will be lucky to have a $15 billion dollar budget in two years.

Yes, here come the cuts. 5% of the current budget is roughly $1B ... and with several of the expensive, low priority programs identified, there could be more extensive cuts than Dennis Wingo postulated.

Ahh... if "lowest impact" and budget numbers are the only constraints, perhaps start with the PR department?

With the BO policy, this could easily be the advanced liquid engine design/development for heavy lift.

The civil services main costs are meetings and paperwork. Find some documents that NASA writes that SpaceX does not. Put them up for banning.

And another cycle of broken space explorations promises begin with Obama.

"Your agency is required to identify the programs and subprograms that have the lowest impact on your agency's mission and constitute at least five percent of your agency's discretionary budget."

My goodness, won't that be an interesting exercise. At JPL when it comes time for annual employee reviews, the different section group supervisors get in a room and rank every employee in the section based on contribution and cost. It's a distasteful exercise but an interesting one none the less--it catches the outliers. It would be interesting if each NASA center chose to do something similar with it's portfolio of programs/subprogams: rank order all by contribution to NASA's mission and cost. It looks like they will have to do something like this anyway. I wonder if there will be an rationality in the process? In any case, the era of expanding budgets is over.

"Your agency is required to identify the programs and subprograms that have the lowest impact on your agency's mission. [...] In doing so, your agency should consider whether the program has an unclear or duplicative purpose, uncertain Federal role, completed mission, or lack of demonstrated effectiveness."

Let's see...something that does little to nothing to further the Agency's mission and is completely ineffective...

How much could NASA save without a Public Affairs Office?

Errr, you do know that TARP and most of the other bailouts occurred or were initiated under Bush, right? Granted, Obama continued TARP, and this 5% policy may still be like trying to put a band-aid on a severed artery, but still, credit (and blame) where credit's due.

On an unrelated note, it's worth pointing out that NASA has already escaped the 2011 budget freeze- it's possible (though not at all guaranteed) that they might be excluded from this, too.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth science division was merged with the NOAA - apparently a major focus of this announcement is to eliminate areas of redundancy, and while I strongly support the work NASA is doing on Earth science/climate science, there's no reason it can't be folded in with the NOAA.

Given the letter went out to ALL Federal Agencies.

You can thank Sen Shelby and Hutchison for adding legislation to "protect" the NASA Cx Program and there by damaging NASA as the whole agency must now suffer once again.

The analysis for Cx on what to keep and what not to keep just became a whole lot easier.

"Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth science division was merged with the NOAA - apparently a major focus of this announcement is to eliminate areas of redundancy, and while I strongly support the work NASA is doing on Earth science/climate science, there's no reason it can't be folded in with the NOAA."

Hear, hear!!

This isn't a big deal. Federal agencies had to do this last year as well, and NASA still got an increase.

Cutting stable budgets like NASA is easier, wins political points with many and is also complete irrelevant to fixing what is busting the federal budget: Entitlements.

Congress and the White House can cut, cut, cut away at discretionary budgets and then sit back and watch as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and debt interest spending rockets to orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

Just wondering, what's the cost of any earmarks in the NASA budget?

Making an effort to cut waste and some redundancy is a good thing. However, some redundancies can be a good thing...

Regardless...the handwriting is one the wall...or has been...we are just starting to read it. The federal budget is a mess...in such a way that previous efforts to provide a short term fix won't due. And it is all tied to a world economy that seems to be headed for rough waters for at least a half of a generation.

Is NASA a good bet for young people (under 45) who want to DO SOMETHING? Some folks there with 20+ years have NEVER worked on a program that wasn't canceled. I know it will still attract those who want to work there...but will they be worth a damn?

Let's see, lowest ranking programs: Ares 1, Ares V, Altair. That's the ticket-Keep Constellation but gut its failing elements. Go Falcon 9!!! Go commercial!!! Go the end of NASA monopoly on human spaceflight!!!

Yeah! Let's destroy one of the few government organizations in this country that actually creates more wealth than it consumes while advancing our technology. What do we need those silly NASA scientist and engineers for anyway? What have they ever done for us??????

Time to tear this country down! Yeah!!!

Marcel F. Williams

The memo does not signal a budget cut. Even if NASA were to have its budget doubled in 2012, it would still make sense to proactively identify non-productive programs and eliminate them if possible.

Ask any horticulturist: judicious pruning is an essential aspect of healthy growth. Lopping off a few dead limbs only helps the rest of the tree.

You can tell the crazies apart from the rest of us by their response to this meaningless news.

@Aerin

NOAA and NASA's missions are not duplicative. Indeed NASA already manages NOAA developments creating efficiency between the two organizations.

Why does NOAA not manage its own developments. As far as I am concerned, earth science can go to NOAA and take its funding with it. Since oceanic and atmospheric science is high priority (rightfully, what with BP and climate change), this could shrink the NASA budget significantly in the future. But that's ok if it brings clarity to NASA's objectives. NASA is torn in far too many directions.

Aeronautics can go to the FAA, since it is well established and no longer a frontier (except for hypersonic which DOD covers). What the hell is green aviation, anyway. And yes maybe we should change the name (how about National Space Exploration Agency).

NASA should be about exploration. Both human and robotic. focus people, focus. That's how you move ahead.

"Yeah! Let's destroy one of the few government organizations in this country that actually creates more wealth
than it consumes while advancing our technology. "

repeating that over and over wont make it true.

Robert G. Oler

Keep Failing away Aerin

NASA is focused on its diverse important missions. The Political Centers and you can name them can have fun with politics, what this has to do with focus on the NASA missions is lost on me.